Category Archives: 2007

Movie: Beaufort (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

We all know of a country named Israel, and we are also aware of what the Nazis led by Hitler did to Jews in World War II, but it is a little hard for Japanese people to understand the complexity of what kind of country Israel is today, what is happening in Israel, and what kind of relationship Israel has with their neighbors—the Palestinian National Authority, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Therefore, when Japanese people watch this movie, it is difficult to understand what young Israeli soldiers are doing in Beaufort castle in south Lebanon. Although the Israeli soldiers do not attack anyone in this movie, missiles soar incessantly from somewhere and young soldiers die one after another.

The movie is set in 2000, but this movie is difficult to understand unless you look at the background leading up to it. Since the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, Jordan actively accepted the Palestinian refugees driven from Israel; but after the Six-Day War, they changed their direction and expelled Palestinian refugees from Jordan in order to maintain a more neutral alignment. These Palestinian immigrants moved to Lebanon and brought about great chaos in Lebanese politics which had been under a delicate balance between Christians and Muslims; after this, Syria became more influential over Lebanon.

In 1982, with one border secured with the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that was mediated by the Carter administration, Israel suddenly invaded a chaotic Lebanon and besieged Lebanon’s capital, Beirut. The true intentions were to remove Syria and other Arab influence from Lebanon, convert Lebanon into a pro-Israel nation, and keep Bashir Gemayel—a charismatic, pro-Israel, anti-Syria, young Lebanese leader—in power in Lebanon’s government. Bashir was elected as president in the August 1982 elections, but was assassinated in the following September. Lebanon plunged deeper into civil war as a result of this. Beaufort is a historic castle that was built by the Crusaders in the 12th century and Israel took control of this castle during this fierce battle.

In response to the invasion of the Israel army, a military association called Hezbollah was formed in Lebanon. It was a radical Shia Islamic organization and its main objectives were to found an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Lebanon and remove non-Islamic influence in that area. It took an anti-Western stance and supported the Israeli extermination; it is said that Iran and Syria supported this. On the other hand, Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt criticized the actions of Hezbollah. Since the 1980s, Hezbollah has attacked facilities associated with the West and Israel that were both within and outside of Lebanon including the suicide bombing on the American Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983, the suicide bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in 1984, and attacking the Israel Embassy in Argentina in 1992. In the movie, the Hezbollah attacks the Israel army in Beaufort with missiles from a distance.

During the Cold War, America supported Israel and adopted the strategy to make Israel the center of anti-Soviet Union politics within the Arab region, but since 1990, the world situation changed and Iraq became a threat to America. In return for Syria dispatching troops for the Gulf War, America allowed Syria to settle the civil war in Lebanon in Syria’s favor. Thus, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon did not result in what Israel envisioned and, under criticism from the whole world, they proceeded to withdraw from Lebanon. In 2000, Beaufort functioned as the only base and lookout point for Israel in Lebanon, but the Israeli government finally decided to withdraw troops from there.

This movie focuses on the Israeli soldiers who were sent here just after being drafted as teenagers and didn’t understand the international dynamics; since Israel has decided to withdraw, a counterattack is not allowed, but even though the soldiers request to leave the fortress, the reply from headquarters is to just wait. Squad members die one after another while there is no superior officer to depend on. This movie depicts soldiers who have a pessimistic feeling about how their lives are being risked to protect the fortress that will soon be abandoned, are dissatisfied with the inexperienced leadership of the commanding officer who is also young, dream of returning to Israel and being reunited with their lovers, and, through it all, have mutual friendships and encourage each other.

The undercurrent flowing through this movie is the question of, “What was the huge sacrifice of the attack of 1982 for?” With the world believing that the chaos in Lebanon was entirely because of Israel, Israel’s international standing worsened. No country wants to look back on their own past of violent acts that were criticized by other countries as historical mistakes. Hitler from Germany, Franco from Spain, the Dirty War in Argentina, and the Pacific War in Japan are a few examples. Even though these were historic disgraces, they happened and each country chose what they thought was the best option at that time. The Lebanon Civil War may have been a great mistake for Israel whose top priority has been to establish their home country. However, after watching this movie, I honestly hope that the people of Israel who have been struggling to maintain their nation under a complicated balance of power adopt the very best political measures in the future by learning from history.

日本語→

Movie: Persepolis (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

This movie is about being a “young adult.” This is the period when people start thinking of themselves no longer as children, but aren’t yet recognized as adults by those around them; it is the period of their ego sprouting, selecting their life course, interest in the other gender, and conflict with grownups or the establishment. Similar to puberty, the period of young adulthood often includes behaviors such as becoming uncontrollable after leaving the supervision of their parents or acting without restraint in regards to violence or suicide, by obsessing over the opposite sex or drugs, or running away from home.

Persepolis is the film adaptation of the autobiographical graphic novel that depicts the period of young adulthood of Iranian graphic novelist Marjane Satrapi. Becoming an adult is quite difficult, but because her time of growth coincided completely with the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the Iran-Iraq War, and the subsequent cultural oppression, Persepolis is tinged with a considerable political flavor, though Marjane Satrapi is not a political person. She herself said this interesting comment: “I am not interested in politics. Politics is interested in ME!”

Marjane Satrapi was born in Tehran, Iran in 1969. She is the great grandchild of Ahmad Shah, the last shah of the former Qajar dynasty. Her grandfather and uncle were imprisoned for opposing the policies of Pahlavi Shah who succeeded Ahmad Shah. Her father also possessed progressive thoughts and he spearheaded a resistance movement with the majority of the nation against Pahlavi Shah who suppressed freedom. The joy of Pahlavi Shah fleeing the country in January of 1979 was short-lived; in April, Iran established the Islamic Republic based on a national referendum, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini took power, and oppression in Iran worsened beyond that under Pahlavi Shah’s reign. In addition, their neighbor Iraq, having had disputes at the national border for many years and fearing the influence of the Iranian Revolution, invaded Iran and the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980. Rumors of young soldiers being put in the frontline of the battlefield as a “bullet shield” circulated and many parents who had sons of drafting age fled the country.

In 1983, Marjane Satrapi’s parents arranged for her to move to Austria’s capital Vienna by herself to study abroad. It was not to avoid the war, but rather her parents feared their daughter might become a victim of legal rape; the minimum age for women to get married was reduced to 9 years old in the new Muslim regime and any sexual abuse after a young girl was forced to marry would no longer be considered a crime. However, she was not able to adapt to life in Austria. In those days, the international image of Iranians was a cruel savage, and she wondered if others saw her this way. In addition, she struggled with how her looks and body were different than European girls at an age when she was self-conscious about her appearance; she lived a depraved life without the supervision of her parents, fought with the people providing her housing, and, in the end, slept in the streets without a house to live in and spent her days digging through dumpsters. Suffering from pneumonia and homesick from such a lifestyle, she finally returned to Iran.

After returning home, she became depressed and she almost died from overdosing on drugs. However, with the encouraging words of her family–“Study at a university and become an independent woman”—she entered university. After the failure of a brief marriage with a young Iranian man, the movie ends with her moving to France in 1994 at the suggestion of her parents—“You can’t live your potential in present-day Iran.”

Her uncle was executed under the Islamic Republic alongside other liberals and socialists. A friend that went to war returned without limbs. A friend who lived next door was hit by a missile from Iraq and died. Parties were illegal under the Islamic Republic, but she dared to participate and a friend was chased by the police and died. She was arrested for behavior unsuitable for an Islamic woman and was told, “A fine or a beating?”; she was released after paying a large sum of money. The university she entered with high expectations was governed by Islamic principle, so she had no joy. She had thought Pahlavi Shah was a bad person, but his regime imprisoned her uncle while the regime of the Muslim Khomeini executed her uncle. Nothing in society had improved.

Even though this movie depicts her terrible youth, it does not lose its peculiar cheerfulness. One reason for its cheerfulness is that it is animated and not performed by real actors. Her drawings render a strange, humorous style. However, the brightness flowing through the bottom of this movie will come from the love of family. Marjane Satrapi’s parents were progressive people, but unlike her grandfather and uncle that were executed, they acquired worldly wisdom in order to find a way to survive under political and religious oppression. However, at the same time, they taught their daughter to do the right thing in life, to skillfully find happiness, and to believe in and pursue her own talents. They made up their minds to protect their child from danger by any means and unconditionally forgave and supported her completely if she made a mistake because of immaturity.

With the genuine support from her parents and grandmother, Marjane Satrapi grew up to be a real adult. She was a child who had strong curiosity, was outspoken with her thoughts—which made people around her worry—and became depressed from her difficulties to the point where she may not have been able to recover; but she was also surprisingly acute enough to see opportunities and was able to size up her surroundings with a watchful eye in order to survive. As soon as she was determined to not lose sleep over what was already past, she became a strong person who was amazingly able to live facing forward. Though she was a loser in Austria, she blossomed in a big way in France. Was there a difference in Austria and France? Or is the reason that she became a real adult in France?

日本語→

Movie: The Counterfeiters — Die Fälscher (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

The Japanese title is “Hitler’s Counterfeit Bills,” but the original title does not include the name “Hitler.” However, I feel that the name “Hitler” is packed with the additional meaning of “dictator” as well as “a dangerous man who could do unfathomably terrible things once he had political power.” By adding this single word to the Japanese translation, people will get a sinister feeling, appropriate for the story of this movie. This movie depicts the tragic struggle for survival by the Jews sent to concentration camps during the dark ages of the Nazis, but the way of depicting this is more than just Nazi (bad) versus Jews (good).

The protagonist is a Jew named Salomon, a masterful manufacturer of counterfeit money and documents. He is arrested for making counterfeit dollar bills and sent to a concentration camp because he is Jewish; because of his ability with drawing, he gains favorable treatment from the German soldiers. Before long, the skilled police officer who arrested this counterfeiter gets promoted to a major of the Nazi S.S. and makes contact with Salomon. The major gathers people among the prisoners sent to concentration camps who have talent with drawing, printing technique, and counterfeiting in order to forge money used by Allied nations such as Great Britain, and he becomes the project leader of the operation to destroy the economy of the Allies. The major appoints Salomon as the technical leader of the project and gives Salomon special treatment to complete the project successfully.

Salomon’s dilemma begins from here. By all means, he doesn’t want to help the Nazis he hates. However, his life as well as the lives of his fellow Jews are in danger if he does not obey the major. His fellow Jews are not united for one cause; some flatter the major, some want to believe that their lives are secure if they succeed with the project, while others are temporarily satisfied with the privileges and relatively comfortable living conditions given to them as an elite, and others still—like the printer Burger—urge for anti-Nazi rebellions. It isn’t easy to unite a team in a situation like that. During the project of counterfeiting British bonds—which are considered to be the most difficult to counterfeit in the world—a pride and passion for their work as counterfeiters gradually develop. When their imitation British bonds are completely accepted as genuine by British banks, there is a moment (just a moment) of shared feelings among the major and Jewish prisoners of, “We accomplished something really great together.” The prisoners of the project team are allowed to play ping-pong as a reward.

However, the state of the war gradually shifted unfavorably for the Nazis. Knowing this, the major plans to flee to Switzerland and has Salomon forge Swiss passports for all of his family members; he tells Salomon as he is about to leave, “These are difficult times now. Each of us must persevere to survive.” If he had lived in times of peace, the major may have been a good father, husband, and friend—family-oriented and capable in his job. However, the major brought Salomon into this difficult situation and unintentionally insults him by saying, “Ha ha, nobody can surpass a Jew when it comes to counterfeiting,” when he is excited by the success of the project team. In times of peace, these two men might not have had any reason to hate each other, but in this situation, Salomon acts in a twisted manner towards the major.

The Allies liberate this Nazi concentration camp; the emaciated Jews who were housed on the other side of the camp enter Salomon’s building, but they don’t believe that Salomon and the others are prisoners held captive by the Nazis because they were too healthy. Salomon and the others have to prove that they are fellow Jews and not Nazi soldiers in disguise. In addition, one of Salomon’s associates commits suicide immediately after the concentration camp is liberated. His only reason to live was to fight the terror of the Nazis, but now that the Nazis collapsed, he lost his will to live. Something had broken inside of him along with the collapse of the Nazis.

This movie was made based on the autobiography of the printer named Burger. The comparison of the actual lives of Burger and Salomon afterwards is interesting. Burger was arrested for forging Catholic baptism certificates to help Jews escape from the Nazis and was sent to a concentration camp. After being released, he became a journalist in order to convey his personal experience to the future and continues to work to impeach fascism through publications and lectures. On the other hand, Salomon continued to make counterfeit bills after World War II and was on international wanted lists. He is said to have secretly escaped to Uruguay and some say he further escaped to Brazil and spent the rest of his life there. The full details of Salomon’s life remain a mystery.

日本語→

Movie: The Band’s Visit (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

The musical group Police Orchestra—sent from Egypt for a concert to promote friendship—arrives at an Israeli airport. Although the Police Orchestra was sent to represent the country, there are only eight band members, and they look nonintimidating and somewhat like toy soldiers. There appears to be no escort or manager. By some mistake, the car also doesn’t come to pick them up, but nobody is upset even when left in Israel without knowing anyone—how come??

The band leader asks the youngest band member (in addition to being young, he has the best English skills, is a good-looking man, and immediately hits on Israeli women) to find the bus route that will take the band members to the town of the concert, but the young man pronounces their destination slightly differently—saying “p” instead of “b”—so the band members board the wrong bus and end up in the middle of the desert. The village they end up in is completely different from their intended destination, but, gentle as ever, the spirits of the band leader and members are not brought down. In the only restaurant in this village, the female owner is there as well as Man A and Man B, who are killing some time. While being treated to a meal by the owner, they learn that the last bus was the one they got off of and that this village doesn’t have a hotel. Even when the owner and these two men learn that the band members are from Egypt, they seem unfazed by this and seem to be even more carefree than the band members, with no dramatic hatred or political arguments. By the effort of the quite charming owner, it is arranged that the band leader and young band member stay in her own home, while the assistant leader and two other people stay in Man A’s home and the other three group members stay in Man B’s home for the night.

This woman in her monotonous life looks a little excited to have musicians come from the civilized country of Egypt and suggests that they drive together in a car to a fashionable place a short drive away. The woman—dolled up for the occasion—and the band leader arrive at an empty, spacious, dreary place, similar to a high school cafeteria. Is this a joke? However, because there is a wooden horse near the cafeteria—just like the ones that were on the rooftops of department stores in the old days in Japan—this place seems to be a place where people excitedly come and eat. While eating, the band leader notices that this woman, though a kind-hearted woman, has a loneliness that is not at first apparent; she spent her younger days without constructively thinking about her future and now is no longer young and realizes that there is no suitable man for her around. The band leader also carries a sad past involving his family, which he has told nobody about. Even though he can’t tell others in Egypt, somehow he is able to openly talk with this woman.

The young band member is excited as he drives to town with Man B of the same generation and his friends to play. However, the two girls that the young man brought along are not very pretty. They go to a disco in town, but the disco is not cool at all, only one-fifth of the size of a high school gymnasium. Man B, with no experience with women, doesn’t know how to be kind and escort the girl that came with them who is hurt from being ignored. The young band member can’t help but advise Man B in this situation.

In Man A’s home where the assistant leader is invited into, the man’s parents, wife, and baby are living together. None of them care that the band members are Arab!! The country of origin doesn’t upset them and they begin to matter-of-factly tell of their ordinary, everyday life. The father is quite a fashionable man and enjoys the occasion by singing a song with a band member during dinner. The father still remembers the beginning of his romance with his wife, but the mother doesn’t seem to remember much. The mother is instead more concerned with their son, Man A, who has been unemployed for a year. Man A and his wife also seemed to have married after falling in love, but their passion seems to have faded and it wouldn’t be surprising if the wife left at any time. I wonder what would happen to the baby if such a thing occurred. At the beginning, the audience is fixated on what will happen to the band members left in Israel who are like The Little Prince that flew down to Earth, but the attention of the audience naturally shifts over time to the lives of the people living in this small town in Israel.

After one night, the band members leave the town with feelings of gratitude. The members seem to have arrived safely at their destination as the movie ends with the scene of the band performing in front of a crowd. Someone may want to say that nothing happened, but this movie is in fact a surprisingly excellent work packed with a lot of content in 80 short minutes. Viewers may have different interpretations due to their experiences, knowledge, education, or interests, and each one may be correct. This movie is like a mirror reflecting each person’s heart.

I also had various thoughts when I watched this movie, but I’ll write about one—the intellectual criticism of American Hollywood movies flowing through the bottom of this movie. Hollywood movies offer romance and characters with beautiful faces that meet, fight, and have dramatic endings, but the director seems to gently say that these are not always required to make an excellent work. Some Israeli people with a connection to Hollywood make dramatic, big-budget movies about the Holocaust or Middle East conflict. But he may want to say that Israel is not just this. Even for young people living in Israel, it is hard to find a spouse they are excited to marry and, if they do, a stable life may not continue. Life is not easy even at the best of times, but it is even more difficult since there is strife with foreign countries and terrorism. People of various beliefs live in Israel, but most people understand the reality and the fact that there is no other country but Israel to live in. They do not know whether or not the methods used to found the nation of Israel were the best, but with the efforts of many people and a heavy price paid, they got their own country by expelling former inhabitants; with this past, there may be a genuine feeling of wanting to protect their country while inflicting as little harm on other groups of people as possible. Otherwise, what were the various sacrifices of the past for?

I have a close Jewish friend. She is married to a non-Jewish person, has a high-skill job, enjoys her relationships with people at the synagogue, enjoys her friendships with people of different cultures, supports the Democrat president, travels abroad every year, has saved money for retirement, and donates her extra money to support the higher education of girls in Kenya. For her, America is the only country where she can live happily and safely, but her son has a strong interest in Israel and, in the end, went to Israel to study abroad. According to her, “I didn’t intend to raise my child with the feeling of wanting to live in Israel, but I can’t stop him from wanting to go there. I tell myself that living and experiencing actual life in Israel is a necessary process for him. Half of me is worried for my son and half is proud of his determination.”

日本語→

Movie: Caramel (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

Caramel depicts the friendship between five women—three young women working at a beauty parlor in a poor neighborhood of Lebanon’s capital Beirut, a middle-aged starlet customer, and an elderly tailor woman—and each of their love stories. This beauty parlor friendship is reminiscent of the American film Steel Magnolias and it captures a woman’s point of view well. Why does a beauty parlor become the setting of the story of friendship between women?

First, a beauty parlor is a place just for women. With the absence of men, the women who usually exercise restraint around men can express their true feelings. Usually devoted to their parents, husband, and children, this place is where women are the center of attention as a customer. Also, a beautician is not managed by a male boss and is valued for her specialized skills. Furthermore, since the female customers of this place must expose their flaws that they normally conceal—wrinkles, blemishes, grey hairs, or thinning hair—they do not feel like they have to conceal their own private life, weaknesses, and worries anymore to the beautician who knows their flaws; perhaps they can share their true feelings and a sisterhood may develop.

While Japanese women also believe that “the hair is the life of the woman,” it seems that Middle Eastern women especially believe in this. When I started living in America, I attended an English class where there were women from different foreign countries. There was another Japanese woman—pretty, young, and with long hair—as well as some women from the Middle East—Egypt, Iran, etc. One day, when the Japanese woman began to say, “My hair care method is…” the Middle Eastern women, who until then seemed bored holding their children and uninterested in the conversation, suddenly get up from the sofa and practically cast their children aside, scooting closer to the Japanese woman to ask, “Please tell me your secret!!” In the end, her secret to beautiful hair was to eat seaweed every day, to which everyone responded, “Oh…” with a look of disappointment. Even now, I remember how the light of their eyes full of lively curiosity quickly faded.

To Japanese people, all Arab countries and the Middle East are seen as more-or-less the same and there is the image that women conceal their body and wear a veil, but Middle Eastern countries each have their own unique culture and history. Turkey and Iran certainly possess their own long-lasting traditions and refined culture, but so does Lebanon. Overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon trades with countries in both northern Africa and southern Europe and there have been many Christians there from ancient times; also, Lebanon was under French control in recent years so formed strong relations with southern Europe. In particular, since this movie’s protagonists are Christian, they do not have to wear a veil and display their beauty freely.

In addition, people tend to think of Lebanon as a country of war. This is historically true and there was a war between Lebanon and Israel in 2006, around the time this movie was made. However, there is no hint of war in this movie at all. The beautiful Nadine Labaki played the lead role in, wrote the screenplay for, and directed this movie. Her intention was, “I don’t want people to merely see Lebanon as a country of war. Just like other humans, we have ordinary lives with the struggles of love that anyone encounters. I want people to see us as we truly are.” Certainly in this movie, there are common worries for women such as adultery, the fear of growing old, the pressure from society to be chaste, yearning romantically for other women, the obligation of having to care for their family, and anxieties over their marriage. However, the uniqueness of the Lebanese women in this movie can be seen in the background; they fear that war may reach their streets again at any time and, as Christians living among Muslims, they are tangled between European culture and Muslim culture.

The Phoenicians were Lebanon indigenes who invented the Phoenician alphabet that became the basis for the Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic alphabets. After that, this area was conquered by Arabians from the east in the 7th century. Afterwards, this area gained autonomy from the ruling Ottoman Empire, and Christianity from the west was also influential. After Turkey was defeated in World War I, this land became a mandated territory of France due to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. France ruled over Tunisia and Algeria with considerable difficulty, but ruled easily over Christian countries like Lebanon. This mandate ended in June 8, 1941 and was followed by Lebanon’s Declaration of Independence. This independence received support from the United Kingdom and was peaceful. Afterwards, Lebanon entered international markets in areas such as financing and tourism and there was rapid economic growth; Lebanon’s capital Beirut did well as a resort and became known as the “Paris of the Middle East.”

In Lebanon, Christians and Muslims somehow managed to maintain a balance of power, but this balance collapsed when their neighbor Jordan expelled the Palestinian refugees being sheltered in Jordan, causing Palestinian refugees and PLO extremists to pour into Lebanon in great numbers. Civil war broke out in 1975, and in 1982, the Israeli army, allied with the Christians in Lebanon, invaded Lebanon. Israel, faced with resistance from Hezbollah—a radical party supported by Syria and Iran—and opposition from international public opinion, eventually withdrew from Lebanon in 2000; afterwards, though, chaos continued in Lebanon with a complicated four-way factional conflict between a pro-American faction, a pro-Syria faction, a pro-Hezbollah faction, and an anti-Hezbollah faction, and the nation became exhausted. In 2006 when this movie was made, Israel was angry with the terrorist activities of Hezbollah and attacked Lebanon, which resulted in the 2006 Lebanon War. Eventually, Israel accepted the ceasefire resolution from the United Nations Security Council and withdrew, and the strength of Syria’s control over Lebanon became stronger.

Director Nadine Labaki’s standpoint of, “I am not political,” is persistent throughout this whole movie. However, she became famous suddenly for this movie that was a big hit internationally and she was chosen as one of the top 5 women in Arabian Business magazine’s “Top 100 Most Powerful Arabs” so she is no longer able to keep the standpoint of, “I am not political.” After that, she made Where Do We Go Now? which depicts the conflict between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon. I think I want to write a different entry about this movie.

日本語→

Movies: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007), If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle (2010)

Posted on by
Reply

The 2000s brought in a time of extremely remarkable movies in Romania. Every year several of their movies won the highest prizes at international film festivals, and this movement is said to be the Romanian New Wave. Cristian Mungiu’s După dealuri (Beyond the Hills) made the shortlist at the end of this year to be nominated for the next Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. If nominated, it would be the first for Romania’s film industry. The Romanian New Wave is a general term for Romanian movies that have attracted international attention starting from the 2000s, but there are some commonalities between them, such as the addressing of social issues and the use techniques that are intentionally amateurish, minimalistic, and documentary-like. The generation that was in their teens and twenties when socialism collapsed is now in their thirties or forties and, with the influence of Western Europe and America, are making new movies.

Romanian movies collapsed under the socialist government so there are no older, established directors that control the younger generation, meaning this younger generation of directors can act freely when making movies. Because they experienced the societal change and overturning of their world in the very sensitive time of their teens and witnessed the difficult rebuilding of their nation, they have many themes they wish to express. In addition, there is a curiosity from the whole world about what the people of Romania feel and think about now, and there is an audience carefully listening to the voices expressed through Romanian movies. Access to movies of Western Europe steadily became available, and the freedom to travel became guaranteed after Romania became a member of the EU. Moreover, there are role models of global fame close by, such as director Nuri Bilge Ceylan from their neighbor Turkey. All of these conditions that were conducive for filmmaking had ripened. Every time a Romanian movie wins an award at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals, the country rejoices for the honor received for the country, quite like the times when someone wins a gold medal in gymnastics for Romania in the Olympics.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is the most internationally successful movie of the Romanian New Wave. Set in Romania during the dictatorial regime of President Ceausescu, the movie depicts one day where the heroine helps with an illegal abortion for her roommate who is pregnant. Director Cristian Mungiu is in position for a nomination in the 2013 Academy Awards for Beyond the Hills. Because Cristian Mungiu was born in 1968 and is only 44, it may be said that he is the most successful director in Romania when considering his career.

In Romania under a socialist government, abortion was illegal. Many young Romanian couples didn’t want children or at most had two or three; President Ceausescu, fearing a decrease in population, passed a law to prohibit abortions in 1968. As a result, there were women who risked getting illegal abortions and died. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days depicts the main character, a university student on the way towards elite status, rushing around to help her roommate get an abortion. The situation and the partner involved in the friend’s pregnancy are not depicted. This movie gives a glimpse into the life of intellectuals, right before the collapse of the socialist administration in Romania. For example, the protagonist searches for an illegal doctor that she heard about from word-of-mouth without consulting her friend’s parents; she walks the desolate streets of Bucharest where stray dogs are wandering around; she uses cigarettes in exchange for cash; when she enters the humble-looking apartment of her boyfriend’s family, we see the family is secretly enjoying a life of luxury (they appear to be quite rich); at the end, the main character’s boyfriend does not seriously consider what he would do if she were pregnant.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle is the product of newcomer director Florin Serban and veteran screenplay writer Cătălin Mitulescu and was honored with two awards from the 2010 Berlin Film Festival—the Silver Bear Prize (Jury Grand Prix) and Alfred Bauer Award. Cătălin Mitulescu was born in 1972 and is just 40 years old. He made Trafic in 2004 which won the Short Film Palme d’Or award in Cannes, and this movie is said to be what led to the surge of the Romanian New Wave. His The Way I Spent the End of the World in 2006 gained great international attention. Director Florin Serban was born in 1975 and does most of his work in America.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle is about an 18 year old boy who is a juvenile delinquent living in a detention facility. How he ended up in this detention facility is not explained at all. However, people of Romania know that many children were taken to orphanages due to child neglect by the parents during the time of the Ceausescu administration. These children were called “Ceausescu’s bastards” and turned into street children, which later became a very serious social problem for Romania. Furthermore, after the collapse of the socialist administration, many parents found temporary work away from home in Italy or Spain in order to earn money. These children that were left had to find some means to survive, so many committed crimes and were sent to juvenile prison, like the main character of this movie.

If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle uses long shots with a handheld camera. Therefore, the picture shakes a little and somehow gives the impression that it is a documentary taken by an amateur. Florin Serban majored in film studies at an American university and watched many sophisticated movies, and I think he could make a sophisticated movie like these if he wanted to; however, I believe he intentionally chose to use a technique that uses raw material and an amateur-looking style in this movie.

There are not many people working as actors in Romania. Nationwide auditions are held for these movies and the actors chosen are amateurs and a few acting students. However, I think middle-aged Cătălin Mitulescu and Cristian Mungiu will start to train actors and movie developers and it is just a matter of time until a new maturity begins in the Romanian New Wave.

日本語→

Movie: Katyń (2007)

Posted on by
Reply

If I were to be asked right now to choose only one movie among the movies I’ve seen that is the most worthwhile, I would choose the Polish movie Katyń without hesitation. It is quite a high quality movie and this movie offers information that I may never have known if I hadn’t watched it. I am grateful for this movie from the bottom of my heart.

Sandwiched between Russia on the east side and Germany on the west, Poland has tragically been the victim of the two countries’ power struggles throughout history. In September of 1939, Germany invaded Poland, beginning World War II, and, utilizing this chaos, the Soviet Army invaded Poland from the east. While this was going on, the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty was covertly signed and Poland was occupied and divided by Germany and the Soviet Army. Poles being pursued by from the German army from the west and Poles being pursued by the Soviet Army from the east encountered each other near the Bug River in eastern Poland. Those escaping from the Soviet Army told the Poles who escaped from Germany that it was dangerous and to head back west, while those escaping from the German army said the opposite. At that moment, trapped between two armies, each individual had to decide their fate.

The Polish government escaped to London and formed a Polish government-in-exile. Polish soldiers immediately complied with the orders of both armies, honorably and peacefully surrendering to the German and Soviet armies. The German army, in accordance to international law, released their Polish soldiers, but the Soviet Army did not. Katyń depicts the fates that followed the Polish soldiers that surrendered to the Soviet Army.

After the Soviet-German War broke out in 1941, the Polish government-in-exile and the Soviet Union formed a treaty with an anti-German interest, and the Soviet Union was supposed to release all of their Polish prisoners and organize a Polish unit to attack the Nazis. However, more than 90% of the soldiers that were prisoners were unaccounted for; when the Polish government-in-exile in London pursued the Soviet Union to release all of the Polish soldiers, the Soviet Union responded that there was delay due to office work and transportation.

However, the German army violated the non-aggression treaty and invaded Soviet Union territory in April 1943; near the Katyn forest, former Soviet Union territory, they discovered the dead bodies of nearly twenty thousand Polish soldiers. Germany widely broadcasted this crime committed by the Soviet Army in 1940. After Germany was defeated and World War II ended in 1945, Poland was put under Soviet Union control as a satellite country of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union argued that, in fact, the Katyn forest massacre was an act of the German army and they carried out a grand anti-Nazi campaign; afterwards, it became taboo for Poles under Soviet Union control to mention the truth of the event.

This movie depicts the tragedy of the few families of the Katyn massacre victims that resisted the occupying Soviet Union by trying to reveal the truth of the event—after the Soviet rule started, most Poles obeyed the Soviet Union because of their hatred of Nazi Germany and for the sake of their personal safety.

Director Andrzej Wajda’s father was killed in the Katyn forest massacre. He gained international fame with works such as Kanał, Ashes and Diamonds, and Man of Marble, but because of his anti-Soviet stance, he was oppressed by the government of Poland. For over 50 long years, he had a plan to make a movie of the Katyn forest massacre, but it was impossible before the collapse of the Berlin Wall; he was already 80 years old when he was finally able to make the movie in 2007. I felt through this movie his determination of, “I can’t die until I convey what happened in the Katyn forest.” We must remember the following three points from this movie.

One, the crime. War is an abnormal, extreme situation where people kill each other, but there are universal rules in it. First, civilians must never be killed intentionally. And even soldiers must be treated humanely once they have surrendered. However, under the orders of Stalin, the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) in charge of prisoner accommodations interrogated each Polish soldier, and any soldier that was thought to have even a trace of anti-communist belief was killed mercilessly.

Two, the lie. After Germany discovered the dead bodies near the Katyn forest, Geneva’s International Committee of the Red Cross was asked to conduct a neutral investigation, but, faced with resistance from the Soviet Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross abandoned dispatching the commission. On April 24, 1943, the Soviet Union demanded that the Polish government-in-exile, in alliance with the Soviet Union at the time, announce, “The Katyn massacre was a German scheme.” But the Polish government-in-exile refused and, in response, the Soviet Union cut off their alliance with the government-in-exile. Believing that support from the Soviet Union on the side of the Allies was needed to win World War II, direct criticism of the Soviet Union was not permitted. In 1944, American President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Navy Commander George Earle as a secret agent to gather information on the Katyn forest massacre. Earle collected information by contacting Bulgaria and Romania who were sided with the Axis and came to think that the Katyn forest massacre was an act of the Soviet Union, but Roosevelt rejected this conclusion and ordered for Earle’s report to be suppressed. Earle requested permission to release his investigation, but Roosevelt sent him a written order prohibiting him. Earle was dismissed from these duties after that and he was demoted to duties concerning Samoa. Supported by circumstances from ally countries like this, the Soviet Union was allowed to maintain the lie that Nazi Germany was responsible for the massacre for over 50 years.

Finally, I want to emphasize the arrogance of a nation that wins in war.

The crimes of Nazi Germany were judged in the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. The Soviet Union took advantage of the opportunity as a victor to accuse particular Germans as the masterminds of the Katyn forest massacre, but America and the United Kingdom drew the line at this and refused the accusation of the Soviet Union. After that, an argument on the responsibility of this event continued in both the Western Bloc and Eastern Bloc, but nobody in Poland was permitted to investigate the truth out of fear of the Soviet Union which controlled Poland then. This situation of not asking for the truth continued until the communist regime collapsed in Poland in 1989 and the young generation knew nothing of the Katyn forest massacre.

After the Soviet Union became less oppressive in 1989, the human rights of the victims of the Katyn forest massacre were finally recognized. In 1989, scholars in the Soviet Union disclosed that Stalin gave the order for the killings and Beria, the chief of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, signed the decree for the Katyn forest massacre. In 1990, Gorbachev admitted the Soviet Union’s People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs involvement in the killing of Polish people including in Mednoe and Pyatikhatki, where burial sites like Katyn were found. After the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1992, the Russian government finally released the official documents on the Katyn forest massacre, publicly revealing for the first time in over 50 years the lie that the Soviet Union had maintained.

日本語→